• FENN, TEMME, DELANEY, AND COURTNEY

The Development of Phased-Array Radar Technology

The Development of
Phased-Array Radar Technology
Alan J. Fenn, Donald H. Temme, William P. Delaney, and William E. Courtney
■ Lincoln Laboratory has been involved in the development of phased-array
radar technology since the late 1950s. Radar research activities have included
theoretical analysis, application studies, hardware design, device fabrication, and
system testing. Early phased-array research was centered on improving the
national capability in phased-array radars. The Laboratory has developed several
test-bed phased arrays, which have been used to demonstrate and evaluate
components, beamforming techniques, calibration, and testing methodologies.
The Laboratory has also contributed significantly in the area of phased-array
antenna radiating elements, phase-shifter technology, solid-state transmit-and-
receive modules, and monolithic microwave integrated circuit (MMIC)
technology. A number of developmental phased-array radar systems have
resulted from this research, as discussed in other articles in this issue. A wide
variety of processing techniques and system components have also been
developed. This article provides an overview of more than forty years of this
phased-array radar research activity.

     was certainly

T
not new when Lincoln Laboratory’s phased-
array radar development began around 1958.
Early radio transmitters and the early World War II
radars used multiple radiating elements to achieve de-
sired antenna radiation patterns. The Army’s “bed
spring” array, which first bounced radar signals off the
moon in the mid-1940s, is an example of an early ar-
ray radar. A new initiative in the 1950s led to the use
of rapid electronic phasing of the individual array an-
tenna elements to steer the radar beam with the flex-
ibility and speed of electronics rather than with much
slower and less flexible mechanical steering. Many in-
dustrial firms, government laboratories, and aca-
demic institutions were involved in developing meth-
ods for electronic beam steering. In fact, this research
area in the 1950s could be characterized as “one thou-
sand ways to steer a radar beam.” Bert Fowler has
written an entertaining recollection of many of these
efforts from the 1950s to the present [1].
Many skeptics at that time believed a workable and
affordable array radar with thousands of array ele-
ments, all working in tightly orchestrated phase co-
herence, would not be built for a very long time. In
retrospect, both the enthusiasts and the skeptics were
right. The dream of electronic beam movement was
achievable, but it has taken a long time to achieve the
dream, and it is not yet fully realized—we still need to
reduce the cost of phased-array radars. We are cer-
tainly encouraged, however, by the progress in mod-
ern solid state phased arrays.
The Beginning
Lincoln Laboratory started working on phased-array
radar development projects around 1958 in the Spe-
cial Radars group of the Radio Physics division. The
initial application was satellite surveillance, and the
level of national interest in this work was very high
after the Soviet Union’s launch of the first artificial
earth satellite—Sputnik I—in 1957. The Laboratory
had played a key role in the development of the Mill-
stone Hill radar under the leadership of Herbert G.

VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2, 2000 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL 321

 • FENN, TEMME, DELANEY, AND COURTNEY
The Development of Phased-Array Radar Technology

Weiss, a radar visionary. At that time, the Millstone
Hill radar was one of the few radar instruments in the
world with satellite detection and tracking capability.
Weiss, along with others in the U.S. Air Force, fore-
saw that the United States would soon need the capa-
bility to detect all satellites passing over its territory.
The volume of radar surveillance needed to accom-
plish this task was clearly enormous, which meant
that radars of great power, antenna aperture, and
beam agility would be required.
One approach to solving this surveillance problem
was to build a large planar array of some five thou-
sand UHF elements. Weiss’s intuition told him the
nation was not yet equipped with the capability to
produce reliable low-cost components that would al-
low engineers to implement a radar with five thou-
sand individual transmitters and receivers. The coun-
try, however, did have some big UHF klystrons in the
Millstone Hill radar transmitter (2.5-MW peak
power, 100-kW average power), and klystrons such as
these could be incorporated into a phased-array radar
of sorts. Thus began a search of a variety of hybrid
mechanically scanned and electronically scanned an-
tenna-array configurations that would use a few of
these big klystrons.
Figure 1 is a drawing of the favored hybrid con-
cept, which featured a cylindrical receiver reflector
140 ft high by 620 ft long [2]. Three rotating vertical
linear arrays formed multiple receive beams in eleva-
tion angle, which were mechanically scanned across
the cylindrical reflector. The klystron transmitters
were coupled to three horizontal linear arrays that did
not use the reflector, nor did they electronically scan.
They formed a fan beam in elevation angle, which
was scanned across a large portion of the sky as a re-
sult of the mechanical drive in a large center hub
(hence this massive machine was given the irreverent
nickname “centrakluge”). Average power output from
a group of 900-MHz klystrons was to be one mega-
watt. This hybrid array concept had great power,
great receiving aperture, and a rapid wide-angle scan
capability. It was configured to survey huge volumes
of space, so that one installation could detect all satel-
lites passing over the United States up to an orbital al-
titude of three thousand nautical miles.
The Laboratory’s focus at the start of this develop-
ment effort was to find efficient ways to build the
long linear phased arrays for the receivers. A variety of
beamforming schemes were investigated, including
beamformers at intermediate frequencies (where high
losses could be tolerated), radio-frequency (RF) di-
ode-switched phase shifters (where losses needed to
be kept very low), and RF multibeam beamformers.
This hybrid electronic-scan/mechanical-scan ap-
proach had critics who argued that it could track sat-
ellites only in a track-while-scan mode, and it could
not track high-interest satellites outside of its some-
what restricted vertical search window. The nation

FIGURE 1. Drawing of a proposed 1950s-era hybrid phased-array radar that combined mechani-
cally scanned and electronically scanned antenna-array configurations.

322 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2, 2000

 • FENN, TEMME, DELANEY, AND COURTNEY
The Development of Phased-Array Radar Technology

seemed to favor the five-thousand-element, full

phased-array approach, an option that was encour- The Sixteen-Element Test Array
aged by a significant U.S. Air Force effort on elec- The strong emphasis on making phased arrays into
tronic scanning array radar (ESAR) at the Bendix practical devices led to the construction of a 900-
Corporation. Also, many engineers in the defense MHz, sixteen-element linear-array fixture as an array
community of that era really wanted the nation to test bed, where array components, such as antenna el-
build a full planar phased-array radar. ements, low-noise amplifiers, intermediate-frequency
The increase in national interest in ballistic missile (IF) amplifiers, mixers, transmitters, and beamform-
defense shifted everyone’s focus toward planar phased ing techniques could be tried, tested, and exercised.
arrays because the challenges and intricacies of active The array test bed was mounted as a feed looking into
missile defense would demand every ounce of radar a parabolic cylinder reflector, and this whole antenna
beam agility, flexibility, power aperture, and wide- structure was mounted on a rotating pedestal and
angle scan that the radar community could muster. housed in a radome on the rooftop of Lincoln
Therefore, interest in linear arrays faded—planar ar- Laboratory’s C Building, as shown in Figure 2. A wide
rays were what was needed—but the nation was still a variety of embryonic phased-array receiver and trans-
long way from achieving the dream of an affordable mitter components were developed and tested in this
planar phased array. sixteen-element array over the first five years of the
Laboratory’s program.
The Early Years
By 1959, a cadre within the Special Radars group at
the Laboratory had formed around a phased-array vi-
sionary, John L. Allen, to push the development of
phased arrays for a wide variety of military missions,
with ballistic missile defense as the mission for which
such radars were most obviously needed. Allen’s goal
was to conduct a broad development effort on arrays,
starting from array theory and extending to practical
hardware developments, in order to improve the na-
tional capability in phased arrays to a point where we
had reliable and reasonable-cost array components, a
variety of beam-scanning techniques, and a sound
understanding of array theory. The work had to have
a practical orientation, and the Laboratory’s effort
had to connect with and influence the wide diversity
of array research going on in industry and govern-
ment laboratories.
Thus in 1959 the Laboratory launched a broad at-
tack on new developments in theory and hardware,
and through the ensuing five years the phased-array
effort functioned very much as an intellectual open
house to share insights with other researchers and as a
clearinghouse to help industry try out its ideas. The
Laboratory developments were chronicled in a series FIGURE 2. Sixteen-element linear-array test-bed facility at
Lincoln Laboratory in 1960. Phased-array components such
of yearly reports entitled “Phased-Array Radar Stud-
as antenna elements, low-noise amplifiers, intermediate-fre-
ies,” which were best-sellers in the array community quency amplifiers, mixers, transmitters, and beamforming
[3–6]. techniques were tested in this facility.

VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2, 2000 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL 323

 • FENN, TEMME, DELANEY, AND COURTNEY
The Development of Phased-Array Radar Technology
Phased-Array Components
The initial experimentation with array antenna ele-
ments started with log-periodic structures that were
reported to have a desirable low mutual coupling.
The early experiments, however, showed that dipole
elements were better candidates for arrays, and much
of the ensuing work was on dipole radiators.
Low-noise front-end amplifiers for phased-array
receivers were a substantial area of investigation.
Work started with a complex electronic device called
the electron-beam parametric amplifier, invented by
Robert Adler at Zenith Radio Corporation and Glen
Wade at Stanford University. More conventional di-
ode-based parametric amplifiers were also investi-
gated. The desire for simpler and lower-cost ap-
proaches led to work on tunnel-diode amplifiers; this
effort finally settled on low-noise transistor amplifiers
with the advent of the field-effect transistor.
IF amplifiers, mixers, and transmitters using me-
dium-power tetrodes were also developed and tested
in configurations that would allow them to fit in a
planar-array structure at 900 MHz.
One of the major efforts was in the development of
various ways to steer the radar beam electronically.
Beamformers that worked at IF were one of the earli-
est approaches, and a variety of schemes were built
and tested. Techniques that worked directly at RF
were also investigated. One invention of that time
was the Butler beamforming matrix, which received
early and comprehensive testing at Lincoln Labora-
tory after its invention by Jesse Butler of Sanders As-
sociates around 1960 [7, 8]. An interesting nuance of
the Butler matrix was its microwave wiring diagram,
which was identical to the computational flow graph
of the fast Fourier transform that hit the headlines a
number of years later. In retrospect, this similarity
was no surprise, because the Butler matrix was indeed
a Fourier transformer [9, 10]. In fact, the Laboratory
built a low-frequency version of the Butler matrix to
serve as a Fourier transformer for a radar burst-wave-
form-matched filter.
The search for digital devices that could electroni-
cally scan radar beams led to a major research effort in
digital diode-switched microwave phase shifters. The
Laboratory’s work in this area contributed substan-
324 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2, 2000
tially to the development of workable diode phase
shifters that found their way into a wide variety of
phased-array radars. This diode phase-shifter work
and related ferrite phase-shifter work are described in
a subsequent section of this article.
Retrospective on the Early Years
There were several enduring values to the phased-ar-
ray work in these early years. First, the Laboratory
quickly became “wet all over” in this new technology
of phased arrays. The work covered a broad front, in-
cluding theory, hardware, experimental arrays, and
systems analysis on military problems requiring
phased arrays. Second, the focus on driving for the
practical, low-cost, highly reliable components that
would make phased arrays a viable future option
helped set the appropriate tone for the national re-
search agenda in phased arrays of that era.* Third, the
Lincoln Laboratory group under the leadership of
John Allen was very much an open house and a forum
for industry, academic, and government workers of
that day. In this fashion, the work performed at the
Laboratory had an amplified impact that went well
beyond the efforts of the ten or so researchers in the
Laboratory phased-array radar group.
The Ensuing Years
In subsequent years, Lincoln Laboratory made sig-
nificant contributions to phased-array technology, in-
cluding array-element design, phase shifters, solid-
state transmit-and-receive modules, gallium-arsenide
monolithic microwave integrated circuits, and array
calibration and testing.
* In 1970 Lincoln Laboratory cosponsored a phased-array
symposium [11] in New York City, which brought together
many contributors to the field of phased-array technology.
The symposium covered all the major aspects of phased-ar-
ray theory, design, and manufacturing, including array-ele-
ment design, feed networks and beam-steering methods,
phase-shifter technology, solid state technology, and array-
testing techniques. Carl Blake and Bliss L. Diamond of the
Laboratory were prominent in the organization of this sig-
nificant phased-array meeting, which assessed the state of the
art and provided a comprehensive, up-to-date source of in-
formation on phased-array antennas.
 • FENN, TEMME, DELANEY, AND COURTNEY
The Development of Phased-Array Radar Technology

Array-Element Design θ
Mutual coupling
One of the fundamental difficulties in designing a
phased array is that significant portions of the micro-
... . . . Antenna
elements

wave power transmitted by one element of the array Amplifiers

can be received by the surrounding array antenna ele- φ φ φ φ φ φ φ Phase shifters
ments. This effect, which is known as array mutual
coupling, can result in a substantial or total loss of Power divider
transmitted or received radar signal, depending on
the coherent combination of all of the mutual-cou- RF source
pling signals in the array. The amplitudes and phases
(a)
of the array mutual-coupling signals depend prima-
rily on the shape of the radiating antenna elements,
the spacing between the array elements, and the num-
ber of radiating elements. There are as many different
Scan sector
design possibilities for phased arrays as there are doz-
ens of different radiating array elements to choose
from, and the spacing and number of radiating ele-
ments can vary widely, depending on the scanning re-
quirements. Naturally, we needed to understand fully
the mutual-coupling aspects of whatever radiated ele- Angle
ment was selected. Thus the Laboratory investigated (b)
many different array-element designs, taking into ac-
count mutual-coupling effects.
The Laboratory’s investigation of the theory of ar-
ray antennas began in 1958 and has continued
through the ensuing years. Allen’s early work contrib-
uted markedly to the understanding of array antennas
in that era [12]. There was a strong focus on under-
standing and modeling array mutual coupling and its
impact on array performance. As described below,
this theoretical and experimental work was continued
at the Laboratory by Diamond [13], Diamond and
George H. Knittel [14], Gerasimos N. Tsandoulas
[15–19], and Alan J. Fenn [20, 21].
(c)
A significant challenge in designing phased arrays
is meeting requirements of scan volume and band- FIGURE 3. General concept of a phased-array antenna that
width while avoiding blind spots and maintaining electronically combines element patterns to point the radar
beam in a particular direction. (a) The antenna uses phase
low sidelobes [11, 22–26]. Figure 3(a) shows the con-
shifters to steer the radar beam electronically over the scan
cept of a corporate-fed phased-array antenna that uses sector. The radio-frequency (RF) source produces a radar
phase shifters to electronically steer the radar beam waveform that is divided up into individual paths called ele-
over the scan sector. The RF source produces a radar ment channels, each containing a phase shifter and ampli-
waveform that is divided up into individual paths fier. (b) An idealized radiation pattern from a single antenna
element covers the scan sector, with signal strength drop-
called element channels, each containing a phase
ping outside of the sector. (c) When all the phase shifters of
shifter and amplifier. the array are properly aligned, the array produces a main
Figure 3(b) shows an idealized element-radiation beam in the desired pointing direction.

VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2, 2000 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL 325

 • FENN, TEMME, DELANEY, AND COURTNEY
The Development of Phased-Array Radar Technology

pattern that covers the scan sector, with signal 0

(a)
strength dropping outside of the sector. When all the

Relative gain (dB)

phase shifters of the array are properly aligned, the ar- Ideal
–10
ray produces a main beam in the desired pointing di- Blind spots
rection, as shown in Figure 3(c). Generally, the corpo-
–20
rate feed is designed with minimal crosstalk between Blind spots must be
channels. Once the signals have reached the radiating avoided over the
–30
desired scan sector
antenna elements, however, a significant amount of
crosstalk (i.e., array mutual coupling) occurs. The Scan sector
amplitudes and phases of these mutual-coupling sig- –40
nals can seriously impact the performance of the
1
phased array.
(b) Scan sector
If the array-element spacing is around one-half-

wavelength, substantial amounts of mutual coupling
can occur. This coupling manifests itself in often del-
eterious changes in the element’s radiation pattern
and its reflection coefficient. Unless care is taken in
the design of the array, blind spots in the radar-scan
sector can occur. These blind spots are angles where
the element pattern has a null and the reflection coef-
ficient of the array has a peak close to unity, as de-
picted in Figure 4. At these blind spots the total radar
signal is significantly reduced in amplitude.
Sometimes we would like to place a blind spot in
directions where it is undesirable to transmit or re-
ceive radar energy. For example, Figure 5 compares a
broadside-peak radiator (dipole or waveguide aper-
ture) and a broadside-null radiator (monopole an-
tenna). The latter element is useful when broadside
radiation is undesirable, such as in reducing broadside
clutter and jamming. As the radar beam is steered
away from 0° (broadside) toward 60°, the conven-
tional broadside-peak-type element radiation pattern
drops off, but the broadside-null-type element radia-
tion pattern increases to a peak at about 45° to 50°.
Early developments of phased-array radiating ele-
ment technology were conducted at Lincoln Labora-
tory during the period from 1959 to 1967. Beginning
in 1959, the Laboratory contributed to the theoreti-
cal understanding of phased arrays, particularly the
effects of array mutual coupling on the performance
of various configurations of dipole arrays; for ex-
ample, the reports by Allen et al. [3–6, 27–32]. Figure
6 shows one of the early L-band dipole-phased-array
test beds used in measuring array-element patterns,
mutual coupling, and array active-scan impedance.
Reflection coefficient
Blind spots
Ideal
0
–90 –60 –30 0 30 60 90
Scan angle (deg)
FIGURE 4. Conceptual images of blind-spot occurrence in a
phased-array antenna. These results are typical of an array
designed without regard for array mutual-coupling effects.
A blind spot occurs when either (a) the array element pat-
tern has a null or (b) the element reflection coefficient has
unity magnitude. The blind spot is often caused by array mu-
tual coupling, which tends to direct the radiation in the plane
of the array as a surface wave, rather than as a wave propa-
gating away from the array. Careful design of the array ele-
ment shape, size, and spacing can prevent the occurrence of
blind spots.
Phased-array radiating elements, primarily for air-
borne applications, were investigated at Lincoln Lab-
oratory during the period from 1968 to 1980.
Waveguide elements of various designs (rectangular,
square, and circular) were studied in great detail, both
theoretically and experimentally [13–19]. Diamond
analyzed waveguide elements [13]; later, with Knittel,
he developed a phased-array-element design proce-
dure [14]. They also showed that small arrays can be
used effectively to design array-radiating elements for
large arrays [33].
A computer program known as RWED (rectangu-
lar waveguide-element design) [34] was developed for

326 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2, 2000

 • FENN, TEMME, DELANEY, AND COURTNEY
The Development of Phased-Array Radar Technology

phased-array analysis, using the Diamond theoretical

formulation. This software was widely circulated by
the Laboratory to the phased-array industry, where it
has been used extensively for designing waveguide
phased arrays.
In the early 1970s, Tsandoulas at Lincoln Labora-
tory utilized the waveguide-array-analysis software
developed by Diamond to design low-sidelobe wave-
guide phased arrays for airborne application in a dis-
placed-phase-center radar antenna [15]. Figure 7
shows a set of measured low-sidelobe L-band phased-
array beam-scanning patterns for the Multiple-An-
tenna Surveillance Radar (MASR) (see also the article
entitled “Displaced-Phase-Center Antenna Tech-
nique,” by Charles Edward Muehe and Melvin
Labitt, in this issue).
In the mid-1980s, Lincoln Laboratory was heavily
involved in the development of a phased-array an-

0°

θ
φ

60° 60°
Scan sector

FIGURE 6. An early L-band dipole phased-array test bed de-

veloped by the Sperry Rand Corporation, used in Lincoln
Laboratory array investigations during the 1960s.

(a) tenna for a space-based-radar surveillance system in-

0°
tended to detect and track aircraft, ships, armored ve-
30° 30° hicles, ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles [35]. As a
Scan θ Scan part of this work, the Laboratory made major contri-
sector φ sector butions to the analysis, design, calibration, and test-
ing of space-based-radar antenna systems. A phased-
60° 60°
array radar orbiting the earth must demonstrate a
number of unique characteristics that require novel
antenna technology if the radar is to satisfy mission
needs. For example, radar clutter is very large when
seen by a space-borne radar looking down at the
earth. In addition, the radar satellite speed is very fast,
(b)
and the Doppler shifts of the radar clutter echoes tend
FIGURE 5. The radiation patterns of (a) a conventional to mask the desired radar-target returns. Thus meth-
broadside-peak radiating element (dipole or waveguide) and
ods for canceling radar clutter, as viewed from space,
(b) a broadside-null radiating element (monopole). A broad-
side-null element places a blind spot in directions where it is are necessary. The radar also requires nulling of large
undesirable to transmit or receive radar energy ground-based jammers.

VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2, 2000 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL 327

 • FENN, TEMME, DELANEY, AND COURTNEY
The Development of Phased-Array Radar Technology

0 cancellation on the order of 40 dB, as shown in the

graph in Figure 9.
Relative gain (dB)

–10 A displaced-phase-center antenna designed for

–20
–30
–40
–72 –48 –24 0 24
Scan angle (deg)
FIGURE 7. Low-sidelobe radiation patterns from the L-band
Multiple-Antenna Surveillance Radar (MASR) waveguide
phased-array antenna at midband. The beams are scanned
to a maximum of ± 45° in azimuth. Typically, the first sidelobe
is at the –36-dB to –38-dB level, with the peaks of all others
below –42 dB (except one shown). The achieved low-side-
lobe levels represent the best performance at the time for
electronically scanned array antennas.
System aspects of the Lincoln Laboratory–de-
signed space-based radar are described in the previ-
ously mentioned article by Muehe and Labitt in this
issue. The Laboratory’s low-altitude space-based-ra-
dar concept favored monopole-type radiators that
had minimum radiation in the subsatellite (nadir) di-
rection, to reduce radar clutter and jamming. Fenn
investigated this problem both theoretically and ex-
perimentally for vertically polarized monopoles [20]
and for horizontally polarized loops [21]. Figure 8
shows an L-band space-based-radar phased-array an-
tenna test bed with 96 active monopole radiating ele-
ments (resembling a bed of nails). This displaced-
phase-center array achieved a measured clutter
clutter cancellation normally turns off elements in or-
der to shift the array phase center. Thus the phase
center can be moved only in discrete columns or
rows, dictated by the element spacing. For the space-
based radar, a method utilizing an amplitude taper for
moving the phase center an arbitrary distance (in-
48 72 cluding a fraction of a column) was developed [36].
Low-sidelobe antenna patterns and adaptive null-
ing are useful in suppressing both jamming and radar
clutter. An ultralow-sidelobe adaptive-array antenna
at UHF called RSTER (Radar Surveillance Technol-
ogy Experimental Radar) was developed by Westing-
house Corporation for Lincoln Laboratory, with aver-
age sidelobes in azimuth on the order of 60 dB below
the main lobe (see the article entitled “Radars for the
Detection and Tracking of Cruise Missiles,” by Lee
O. Upton and Lewis A. Thurman, in this issue). This
array used a corporate beamformer, with special care
taken to reduce amplitude errors and phase-illumina-
tion errors across the array [37].
Phase Shifters
Lincoln Laboratory worked intensively in the late
1950s and in the 1960s to develop phase shifters for
the electronic beam steering of phased-array radars
desired in that time period. Many of the Laboratory
development efforts in the area of phase shifters and
related programs at that time are described in a book
chapter by William J. Ince and Donald H. Temme
[38].

FIGURE 8. Displaced-phase-center monopole phased-array antenna test bed with 96 active

monopole radiating elements. This L-band antenna was used for space-based-radar clutter-
cancellation measurements.

328 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2, 2000

 • FENN, TEMME, DELANEY, AND COURTNEY
The Development of Phased-Array Radar Technology
70
Measured at array scan angle θs = 40°
Clutter-cancellation ratio (dB)
Theory
60
θ = 30°
s
40°
50
40
55°
30
0 1 2 3 4 5
Phase-center displacement (columns)
FIGURE 9. The displaced-phase-center antenna test-bed ar-
ray shown in Figure 8 achieved a measured clutter-cancella-
tion ratio on the order of 40 dB. The theoretical curves in-
clude only array mutual-coupling effects [80].
The first fielded phased-array radar, called ESAR
(Electronically Scanned Array Radar), was built by
Bendix and completed in 1960 [39]. ESAR had IF
analog phase shifters and an IF beamformer. This
beamforming technique was bulky and required good
temperature control. One of the Laboratory’s early
initiatives in phased-array beam steering was the de-
velopment of digital IF beam-steering techniques that
emphasized smaller size and simplicity in control.
This approach utilized diode-controlled digital phase
shifters that switched in and out fractional wave-
lengths of transmission line arranged in a binary cas-
cade and placed in each antenna channel to properly
phase the elements of the radiating array.
These phase shifters, an example of which is shown
in Figure 10, were tested in an experimental linear ar-
FIGURE 10. Early intermediate-frequency six-bit digital phase shifter. Each bit consists of a length
of coaxial cable that can be switched into the signal path to produce the desired phase shift.
ray. They tended to have high loss (several dB) at mi-
crowave frequencies, which is certainly a drawback.
Concurrently, new RF positive-intrinsic-negative
(PIN) diodes used in microwave switching studies led
to simpler lower-loss phase shifters. A. Uhlir of Bell
Telephone Laboratories had shown theoretically how
the PIN diode would be ideal for microwave switches,
with a low impedance when DC-forward-biased and
a high impedance when DC-reverse-biased [38]. The
DC-injected carriers in a PIN diode have long life-
6
times compared to an RF period, but not for an IF
period. Thus, for RF frequencies, the PIN diode does
not rectify but has a low impedance when flooded
with DC-injected carriers and a high impedance (be-
coming a small capacitor) without injected carriers.
Temme at Lincoln Laboratory used these PIN di-
odes to construct the first-ever digital-diode L-band
low-loss phase shifter [5], which is shown in Figure
11. Low-loss diode phase shifters were implemented
in several fielded phased-array radars used in missile
detection, such as HAPDAR (Hard Point Demon-
stration Array Radar), AN/FPS-85, MSR (Missile
Site Radar), Cobra Dane, and the S-band Cobra Judy
[4, 39–41]. MSR used a different circuit configura-
tion, which was devised by J.F. White [42] to achieve
substantially higher RF power capabilities. When two
equal shunt reactances are spaced a quarter-wave-
length apart on a transmission line, a match remains
and a phase shift is introduced. Each shunt reactance
was connected and disconnected across the transmis-
sion line via a PIN-diode switch to obtain a small
variable phase shift, but at a large power level. Sixteen
pairs were used in the MSR phase shifter. The power
VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2, 2000 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL 329
 • FENN, TEMME, DELANEY, AND COURTNEY
The Development of Phased-Array Radar Technology

FIGURE 11. A four-bit low-loss hybrid L-band diode phase shifter. The stripline ground planes
have been removed for clarity.

level, the bandwidth, and the RF loss are interrelated in the microwave region [46]. Figure 12 shows a pho-
by the reactance and diode parameters. tograph of a production model of this digital ferrite
The L-band HAPDAR phased-array radar [41] phase shifter. The development of improved ferrite
was built by Sperry and was completed in 1965. The materials was an important aspect of attaining the
UHF AN/FPS-85 [43] phased-array radar was built good performance promised by ferrite phase shifters.
by Bendix and was completed in 1968. The S-band Understanding the mechanical stress on the ferrite
MSR was built by Raytheon and was completed in toroid led to the development of ferrite material com-
1969. The L-band Cobra Dane phased-array radar, positions with less stress sensitivity, as investigated by
located in Shemya, Alaska, for observation of Soviet Ernest Stern, Temme, and Gerald F. Dionne [47–49].
missile tests, was built by Raytheon and was com- A lower-cost ferrite material—lithium ferrite—de-
pleted in 1976. The article in this issue entitled veloped by the Laboratory with the assistance of
“Wideband Radar for Ballistic Missile Defense and Ampex Corporation had less temperature sensitivity
Range-Doppler Imaging of Satellites,” by William W. to the magnetization that directly controls the phase
Camp et al., describes the Cobra Dane radar in more
detail. Four UHF Position and Velocity Extraction
(PAVE) Phased Array Warning System (PAWS) [44] 180° element
phased-array radars (all solid state) were built by
Raytheon, and are still used for missile warning and Dielectric
BeO separators
space surveillance. slabs Two-section
Ferrite phase shifters, a development that started quarter-wave
Driver transformer
later than diode phase shifters, promised better per- terminal
formance than diode phase shifters (primarily lower
Cooling fins
microwave loss) at S-band and higher frequencies.
Early discussions and analyses were done at the Labo- 90° element
45° element
ratory, which contributed to the early microwave-fer-
rite development [45]. 22.5° element
The ferrite phase shifter with a dielectric-loaded
toroid was conceived and analyzed at the Laboratory.
FIGURE 12. A Westinghouse production model of a four-bit
It was the first phase shifter with less than one dB in- C-band ferrite phase shifter, with the waveguide cover re-
sertion loss that could handle kilowatts of peak power moved.

330 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2, 2000

 • FENN, TEMME, DELANEY, AND COURTNEY
The Development of Phased-Array Radar Technology

shift. The use of this material also permitted the ex-
tension of ferrite-phase-shifter operation to millime-
ter-wavelength frequencies [50]. A flux-drive tech-
nique, also developed by the Laboratory, enabled
phase setting of phase shifters with low temperature
sensitivity and five-bit accuracy without the penalty
of complexity in the phase shifter and driver [51].
These ferrite-phase-shifter techniques were used in
the S-band Aegis phased-array radar developed for
the U.S. Navy by RCA in 1974, the C-band Patriot
radar developed for the U.S. Army by Raytheon in
1975, and the X-band Joint Surveillance Target At-
tack Radar System (Joint STARS) developed for the
U.S. Air Force by Grumman in 1988 [52]. Two pro-
totypes of Joint STARS flew forty-nine missions in
Operation Desert Storm in 1991; a Joint STARS ra-
dar surveillance image is shown in Figure 11 in the
article by Muehe and Labitt in this issue.
Solid State Transmit/Receive Modules
From 1982 to 1990, Lincoln Laboratory led a joint
U.S. Air Force/U.S. Navy space-based-radar trans-
mit/receive-module development program. The goals
of this program were to utilize monolithic microwave
integrated circuits (MMIC) and gallium-arsenide
digital circuitry to produce low-weight, small-size,
highly radiation resistant, highly efficient, and afford-
able modules that were capable of controlling signal
phase accurately over the anticipated temperature
range, with adequate RF-power generation, low DC-
power consumption, and low-noise operation. Figure
13 illustrates the configuration of the L-band trans-
mit/receive module. Both General Electric and Ray-
theon produced several versions of transmit/receive
modules for this program; Figure 14 shows a General
Electric module.
Lightweight L-band transmit/receive module tech-
nology developed for space-based radar applications
was utilized in the Iridium commercial satellite
communications system, which used phased-array
antennas [53]. Gallium-arsenide MMIC transmit/re-
ceive-module technology is used in the Theater High-
Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) X-band phased-ar-
ray radar system [54] built by Raytheon Corporation.

Amplifier Power amplifier Circulator

Transmit
•

signal
Phase To and from
•
•

shifter antenna
Beamformer Attenuator
•

A CR & D
Command register
and driver (CR & D)
Beamformer Attenuator CR & D
•
•

B CR & D
Low-noise
amplifier
Module

Other modules Other modules

•
•
•

•
•
•

Command
Subarray Power
computation
conditioning
chip

Radar control processor Prime power

FIGURE 13. Diagram for desired L-band transmit/receive module for space-based-radar applications. The module con-
tains switches that select either the transmit or receive paths. The receive path contains two attenuators to illuminate two
displaced phase centers, represented by beamformers A and B. The transmit path contains a phase shifter and a power
amplifier to achieve the desired transmit power level for the radar.

VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2, 2000 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL 331

 • FENN, TEMME, DELANEY, AND COURTNEY
The Development of Phased-Array Radar Technology
FIGURE 14. General Electric L-band transmit/receive mod-
ule for space-based radar operations.
The Evolution of Solid State Active Elements
for Phased-Array Antennas
The possibility of creating an all-solid-state realiza-
tion of the phased-array concept arose in the late
1960s, notably through an initiative by Mel Vosburg
of the Institute for Defense Analyses, a study and
analysis center sponsored by the Department of De-
fense (DoD). Vosburg and Carl Blake of Lincoln
Laboratory worked together in this venture. Blake
had succeeded John Allen as leader of the Array Ra-
dars group in which the seminal work on phased-ar-
ray theory and development had taken place during
the previous decade, as described earlier in this article.
With support from the U.S. Army’s ballistic-missile-
defense program at the Ballistic Missile Defense
Advanced Technology Center (BMDATC) of Hunts-
ville, Alabama, development of components with this
phased-array objective was initiated at Lincoln Labo-
ratory in the 1970s. The initial focus was on arrays in
the L-band frequency range.
While the earlier generation of phased arrays had
been based on phasers (variable phase shifters) in con-
ductive-tube waveguides and centralized high-power
vacuum tubes, developers envisioned that array de-
signs incorporating solid state integrated circuits
would open the array concept to a wide range of im-
portant applications, which would benefit from the
major advantages of these circuits, especially compact
size, low weight, low cost, and high reliability.
In the 1960s the technology required for mono-
332 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2, 2000
lithic circuits had not yet sufficiently matured. The
limited quality of early materials and the limitations
of processing technology at the time led to poor pro-
duction yields and inadequate performance of mono-
lithic components. Hence the research effort was ini-
tially based on hybrid designs combining integrated
circuits with more conventional components. Hybrid
circuits were composed of discrete packaged transis-
tors, diode phase-shifting circuits and switches, and
passive components, all attached to a common ce-
ramic substrate and connected to intervening planar
circuits by means of wire bonds. Early development
programs based on the hybrid-design concept, in the
late 1960s and early 1970s, were performed primarily
in industrial laboratories, including those at Texas In-
struments, Raytheon, RCA, Westinghouse, General
Electric, and Hughes. In particular, T. Hyltin of Texas
Instruments, with the support of R. Albert and W.
Edwards at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio,
initiated the Molecular Electronics for Radar Applica-
tions (MERA) program to build a solid state airborne
radar.
In the late 1960s, under Blake’s impetus, Lincoln
Laboratory established a microwave integrated-circuit
facility to develop and refine the technology of pre-
paring substrates and applying circuits and devices,
mainly in the hybrid mode, to the required specifica-
tions for microwave use. Planar circuits were fabri-
cated, on steadily improving ceramic substrate mate-
rials—principally aluminum oxide—with the most
refined photolithography materials and techniques
then available. With these improvements, and with
U.S. Army sponsorship of a program called CAMEL
by the U.S. Army’s Fort Monmouth, New Jersey,
laboratory, researchers began developing a 100-ele-
ment L-band (1.0 to 2.0 GHz) test array [55]. A sec-
ond-generation development was the Advanced
Fielded Array Radar (AFAR) at RCA in Moorestown,
New Jersey, with modules produced by Westing-
house. Although AFAR was not carried to comple-
tion, the effort was valuable in demonstrating the
promises and the limits of hybrid technology.
Gallium-Arsenide Monolithic Integrated Circuits
The all-solid-state UHF ground-based radar called
PAVE PAWS was built with hybrid technology, and it
 • FENN, TEMME, DELANEY, AND COURTNEY
The Development of Phased-Array Radar Technology
performed successfully. The designs of other military
defense radars, such as the Reliable Advanced Solid
State Radar (RASSR) and the Solid State Phased Ar-
ray (SSPA) [56] sponsored by the U.S. Air Force,
were based on similar solid-state hybrid technology.
Eventually, however, researchers realized that a large-
scale, solid-state phased-array radar made with hybrid
circuits would require a very large number of discrete
components and associated wire bonds, which would
lead to excessive cost and inferior reliability compared
to the promise of monolithic technology. Conse-
quently, the phased-array research effort shifted to-
ward the development and deployment of fully inte-
grated circuits composed of devices created on a
common semiconductor substrate [57].
The substrate material recognized as most promis-
ing was gallium arsenide, principally for its character-
istically high carrier mobility, and thus its suitability
for high-frequency systems, specifically in the micro-
wave (1 to 30 GHz) and millimeter-wave (30 to 300
GHz) frequency ranges. The highest available fre-
quencies, and accordingly the shortest wavelengths,
are essential to form narrow beams for high resolution
in target tracking, while lower frequencies, with bet-
ter prospects to fulfill the requirement of high trans-
mitter power, are favored for the associated functions
of surveillance and search. In 1968, in an important
development, E.W. Mehal and R.W. Wacker [58] and
G.D. Vendelin et al. [59], all working at Texas
Instruments, reported an early success in develop-
ment of devices and circuits on gallium arsenide for
microwave and millimeter-wave frequencies. Another
significant advance in those years was a monolithic
low-noise field-effect transistor (FET) microwave
amplifier on gallium arsenide, reported by W. Bäch-
told et al. at the IBM laboratory in Zurich [60].
In Lincoln Laboratory, Blake and Roger W. Sud-
bury collaborated to advance support for the MMIC
phased array. The Laboratory organized its effort for
these projects by establishing a mutually complemen-
tary relationship between the Microelectronics group
in the Solid State Research division, which contrib-
uted the development and refinement of materials
along with device fabrication and testing, and the Ex-
perimental Systems group, which contributed the cir-
cuit designs for phased-array technology.
Success in these pioneering efforts depended on
the solution of numerous interrelated problems. The
potential advantages of higher microwave or millime-
ter-wave frequencies, suitable for the narrow-beam,
high-resolution tracking function of radars, imposed
stringent requirements on the quality of gallium-ars-
enide materials for monolithic wafers, as well as rigor-
ous demands on the optics, metallurgy, and chemistry
of the photolithography process.
The semi-insulating gallium-arsenide substrate on
whose surface the epitaxial device layers are fabricated
is advantageous for its electrically inert character, per-
mitting low insertion loss and also low coupling loss
between the closely spaced circuit components. This
key dielectric property was confirmed in detailed
measurements of complex permittivity of gallium ars-
enide in the range of 2.5 to 36.0 GHz by William E.
Courtney at Lincoln Laboratory [61]. These mea-
surements showed that, when well processed, the ma-
terial is in fact free of the frequency-dependent loss
characteristics that some researchers had feared. As
device and circuit quality improved, still higher per-
formance of the substrate was required for electrical
isolation of the devices, envisioned as densely posi-
tioned on the semiconductor wafer, against interac-
tion with each other. An early success in this effort,
demonstrated at Lincoln Laboratory [62], was the
process of passivation by means of proton bombard-
ment, to create crystalline defects and thereby impart
near-intrinsic-semiconductor properties. Later, a sim-
pler and less costly isolating technique, which was
widely adopted, involved heavy doping of the inter-
vening areas of the substrate to reduce carrier lifetime.
The early efforts in device development at Texas
Instruments led to both hybrid and monolithic cir-
cuits, including balanced mixers, Gunn-diode oscilla-
tors, and frequency multipliers for receiver applica-
tions at millimeter-wave frequencies. Following these
basic advances, various research groups produced pla-
nar devices showing dramatically improved perfor-
mance. Such advances at the Laboratory and in in-
dustry led to a surge of development, especially of
gallium-arsenide metal-semiconductor field-effect
transistors (MESFET), both in discrete form and as
active devices on monolithic chips. The completely
monolithic microwave amplifier chip with gallium-
VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2, 2000 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL 333
 • FENN, TEMME, DELANEY, AND COURTNEY
The Development of Phased-Array Radar Technology
arsenide MESFETs and matching circuits was first re-
ported by R.S. Pengelly and J.A. Turner at Plessey Co.
Ltd. in 1976 [63]; this achievement led to a rapid in-
crease in the involvement of all the leading microwave
research laboratories in further development of
monolithic circuits.
A presentation by Courtney et al. in 1980 [64]
characterized the problems and potential of a mono-
lithic receiver, which is central to the concept of a
solid-state phased array. The Laboratory took on an
advisory role for government agencies that were sup-
porting the new generation of phased-array design. At
the same time the Laboratory continued to conduct
its own research directed toward (1) the development
of technology applicable to the transmit/receive mod-
ule for array antennas in military systems, as well as
(2) the enhancement of its own capability for innova-
tion and consultation.
There was interest in Lincoln Laboratory’s propos-
als for research in solid-state-circuit technology from
the Very High-Speed Integrated Circuits (VHSIC)
program under Sonny Maynard of the DoD. In the
1980s, major support for the development of mono-
lithic microwave technology came through the efforts
of Elliot Cohen, a DoD associate of Maynard’s and a
major advocate, with Blake, of investigation into
practical uses of gallium arsenide for microwave inte-
grated circuits. Cohen sponsored the Microwave and
Millimeter Wave Monolithic Integrated Circuits
(MIMIC) program [65] within the Defense Ad-
vanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The pro-
gram was based on the concept of an “active element”
phased array; i.e., an array with integrated-circuit
phasers and transmit/receive capability as an integral
part of each antenna element, locked to a central
phase and amplitude standard.
The MIMIC program maintained the impetus of
the earlier developments and encouraged the micro-
wave industry to construct the large gallium-arsenide
processing facilities that exist today for the fabrication
of phased-array and telecommunication modules.
The MIMIC program’s objectives included develop-
ment of volume production technology to produce
large-diameter, high-quality substrates suitable for
commercial production of MESFETs optimized for
high power or for low noise; development of com-
334 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2, 2000
puter-aided device and circuit design programs (a
powerful discipline then still in its infancy); and proof
of feasibility to show that monolithic circuits can find
applications in circuits that are suitable and afford-
able for wide use in military systems.
Lincoln Laboratory became deeply involved in this
developing technology, supported by BMDATC. It
was proposed that the Laboratory continue to serve in
its advisory role to the government agencies that were
funding various aspects of the new technologies,
while at the same time enhancing the Laboratory’s
own expertise in the area by developing the technol-
ogy for a millimeter-wave transmit/receive module—
specifically, for a Ka-band (26.5 to 40 GHz) phased-
array seeker on a missile.
The Ka-band module proposed for development
at Lincoln Laboratory under the MIMIC program
was a single-polarization transmit/receive module
with average output power on the order of 100 mW
in the millimeter-wave range at 34 GHz. The system
considerations for such a radar and component devel-
opment to that date were reviewed in 1978 by R.W.
Laton et al. [66] and by Sudbury [67] at Lincoln
Laboratory. Figure 15 illustrates the Ka-band trans-
mit/receive-module configuration and includes illus-
trations of the component chips as of 1985 [68, 57].
The receiver section was based on planar Schottky-
barrier diodes in a balanced-mixer/heterodyne con-
figuration [69]. A novel approach in this circuit was
the dual use of the mixer: in receive mode to produce
an L-band IF signal, and as a switch to protect the re-
ceiver in transmit mode [70]. The mixer output was
followed by a two-stage low-noise IF amplifier, devel-
oped at Lincoln Laboratory, which used a very low-
loss planar coupling capacitor fabricated with high-
dielectric tantalum pentoxide [71].
In addition to fabricating the dual-function mixer
shown in Figure 15, the Laboratory also fabricated a
mixer-preamplifier monolithic chip, successfully
combining for the first time two different active mi-
crowave devices on the same chip. These devices were
a millimeter-wave Schottky-diode mixer followed by
a MESFET IF amplifier operating at 1.0 to 2.0 GHz.
The transmitter chain incorporated a 17-GHz
MESFET driver amplifier, a low-loss phaser using
Schottky diodes, and a 17-GHz FET power amplifier
 • FENN, TEMME, DELANEY, AND COURTNEY
The Development of Phased-Array Radar Technology

To antenna
34 GHz

Transmit/
receive

×2
Local oscillator
Frequency doubler Dual-function mixer
and transmit/receive switch

Power
amplifier

Low-noise
FET power amplifier amplifier

IF
From
(1–2 GHz)
voltage-controlled
oscillator
(17 GHz)
Phase shifter Low-noise IF amplifier

FIGURE 15. Module configuration and organization of component chips for a gallium-arsenide active-element trans-
mit/receive circuit. The transmit side includes phase control and field-effect transistor (FET) power amplification at
17 GHz, and a frequency doubler. On the receive side, a dual unit incorporates a transmit/receive switch and a mixer
that produces the intermediate frequency (IF) at 1 to 2 GHz. This dual unit is followed by a low-noise output amplifier.

driving a doubler to produce output power at 34
GHz [72]. The monolithic doublers [73] were planar
series-connected varactor diodes embedded in match-
ing circuits on a chip. They produced output greater
than 100 milliwatts with 35% efficiency at Ka-band
frequencies [74]. The strategy of frequency doubling
from 17 GHz (Ku band, 12.0 to 18.0 GHz) to 34
GHz (Ka band) was devised, because in the late 1970s
and early 1980s the cutoff frequency of the MESFET
amplifiers was not sufficiently high for operation at
millimeter-wave frequencies.
By 1990, active solid state devices at microwave
frequencies were becoming ubiquitous; MMICs were
routinely developed for commercial applications such
as automobile instrumentation and civilian commu-
nications, and active transmit/receive modules were
being utilized for large phased arrays. Gallium-ars-
enide MMIC transmit/receive-module technology is
used in the X-band (8.0 to 12.0 GHz) theater-mis-
sile-defense phased-array radar system [54] built by
Raytheon Corporation. The decade of the 1990s saw
widespread application of gallium-arsenide mono-
lithic integrated circuits in many fields, including ra-
dar, the Global Positioning System (GPS), direct-sat-
ellite-broadcast receivers, and commercial wireless
telephony.
Array Calibration and Testing
Phased-array antennas require accurate calibration of
their multiplicity of transmit/receive channels, so that
the radar main beam can be pointed in the correct di-
rection and the sidelobe levels of the radar antenna
can be controlled. In practice, the phase shift through
a channel is often affected by temperature and elec-
tronic drift; thus methods for calibration of a fielded
radar system are required. Lincoln Laboratory has
pioneered several phased-array calibration and radia-
tion-pattern measurement techniques [75–80].

VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2, 2000 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL 335

 • FENN, TEMME, DELANEY, AND COURTNEY
The Development of Phased-Array Radar Technology

0
(a)
Measured 0

Absolute gain (dBi)

Relative gain (dB)

–20 Theory

–20
–40

–40
–60

–60
–80
–90 –60 –30 0 30 60 90
Azimuth (deg)

FIGURE 16. Low-sidelobe radiation patterns for an L-band

thirty-two-element monopole phased-array antenna. The av- (b)
erage measured sidelobe level is –50 dB, which is close to
the average theoretical sidelobe level of –52.6 dB.

Airborne and space-based phased arrays contain-

ing thousands of transmit/receive channels require
onboard techniques for in-flight calibration. One
such calibration technique involved the use of the in-
herent array mutual coupling to transmit and receive
signals between pairs of elements in the array, as de-
scribed in a paper by H.M. Aumann et al. (this paper
won the 1990 IEEE Antennas and Propagation
Society’s Best Applications Award) [75]. The mea-
FIGURE 17. (a) Lincoln Laboratory’s ground-test facility for
sured signals between all pairs of elements in the array
adaptive phased-array antenna evaluation in space-based-
allow a complete characterization of the relative am- radar applications. (b) This facility has interior walls covered
plitude and phase response of each channel in the ar- with radiation-absorbing material, which enables full-scale
ray beamformer. Thus the channel phase shifters and real-time testing of radar capability at a test distance of ap-
attenuators (illustrated in Figure 13) can be calibrated proximately one aperture diameter.
to generate any desired phase/amplitude distribution
across the aperture of the array. Furthermore, it was to calibrate an experimental test array [76]. Methods
discovered that once the desired phase and amplitude for compensating for the effects of variations in the
distributions had been applied to the array, a second array radiating-element patterns [77] and failed radi-
series of mutual-coupling measurements allowed a ating elements [78] were also developed. The Labora-
measurement of the phased-array radiation patterns. tory also explored planar near-field calibration and
The mutual-coupling calibration technique was ex- testing in the antenna reactive region (extremely close
perimentally verified by using the monopole phased- near field) to accurately measure low-sidelobe radia-
array antenna shown in Figure 8. This calibration tion patterns [79]. Figure 16 shows a typical low-
technique proved to be a fast and accurate way of sidelobe monopole phased-array radiation pattern
measuring one-dimensional and two-dimensional ar- measured with the reactive-region near-field-scan-
ray radiation patterns, compared to conventional far- ning approach. The measured average sidelobe level
field measurement techniques. is –50 dB, close to the theoretical value. Space-based
The Laboratory explored various other approaches radars or airborne radars can use multiple displaced
for calibrating and testing low-sidelobe phased arrays. phase centers to cancel clutter, as described in the ar-
For example, adaptive-nulling techniques were used ticle by Muehe and Labitt in this issue. A near-field

336 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2, 2000

 • FENN, TEMME, DELANEY, AND COURTNEY
The Development of Phased-Array Radar Technology
scanning method for measuring the clutter-cancella-
tion performance of displaced-phase-center antennas
was also demonstrated [80].
The above phased-array testing techniques are gen-
erally restricted to non-real-time operation. There are
many instances, however, when it is desirable to test a
radar system, either in the field or prior to deploy-
ment, under simulated real-time conditions that in-
clude radar targets, clutter, and jamming. Some of
these radars can have large apertures, on the order of
five to twenty meters. Normally, radars operate under
far-field conditions in which the radiated wavefront is
approximately planar. Because testing these radar an-
tennas under far-field conditions can require a range
several miles long, alternative shorter-range testing is
desirable. A near-field ground-test facility for phased-
array antenna evaluation in space-based radar applica-
tions was developed by Lincoln Laboratory [81]. This
facility, which consists of a large building with the in-
terior walls covered with radiation-absorbing mate-
rial, enables full-scale real-time testing of phased-ar-
ray radar capability at a test distance of approximately
one aperture diameter. The test facility, shown in Fig-
ure 17, provides the capability of implementing a
number of novel test procedures developed by the
Laboratory for measuring the radar system perfor-
mance for antennas up to about twelve meters in
length.
A focused near-field method to test the real-time
performance of adaptive phased arrays for jammer
suppression was theoretically analyzed for single-
phase-center antennas [82] and multiple-phase-cen-
ter antennas for clutter and jammer suppression and
target detection [83]. The focused near-field nulling
technique for suppressing jammers was experimen-
tally verified for a single-phase-center array antenna
[84]. The focused near-field adaptive-nulling testing
technique was also found to have a medical applica-
tion as well [85].
Summary
The 1950s dream of electronic beam steering is
gradually being realized by a variety of phased arrays
currently being used in many ground-based and air-
borne radars. Phased arrays are increasingly envi-
sioned to be critical components for meeting future
challenges in military and civilian systems. Since
1958 the Laboratory has contributed significantly to
the nation’s phased-array radar capabilities. Technolo-
gies developed at the Laboratory have been imple-
mented in many phased-array radars in field opera-
tions. The Laboratory is continuing to investigate
new phased-array technologies in such areas as photo-
nic beamforming, micro-electromechanical phase
shifters, and advanced space-time adaptive processing
arrays.
We foresee great promise in the combination of the
technologies of low-cost all-solid-state array modules,
wide-bandwidth analog-to-digital converters, and
adaptive digital beamforming to allow a variety of so-
phisticated radar operating modes and radar systems.
During the past forty years, Lincoln Laboratory
was privileged to work in this most interesting area of
radar technology and be part of the extensive national
effort to make the vision of electronic beam steering
become a reality [1]. We can posit that the era of the
phased-array radar is just beginning!
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge Jerald A.
Weiss and Roger W. Sudbury of Lincoln Laboratory
for their technical contributions to this article. We
also acknowledge George Knittel and John Allen for
their review of the manuscript, and Chang-Lee Chen,
Leonard J. Mahoney, and Anand Gopinath for fur-
nishing material for the manuscript.
REFERENCES
1. C.A. Fowler, “Old Radar Types Never Die; They Just Phased
Array, or 55 Years of Trying to Avoid Mechanical Scan,” IEEE
Aerosp. Electron. Syst. Mag. 13 (9), 1998, pp. 24A–24L.
2. Private communication.
3. Private communication.
4. J.L. Allen, L. Cartledge, W.P. Delaney, and J. Dibartolo,
“Phased Array Radar Studies, 1 July 1960 to 1 July 1961,”
Technical Report 236, Lincoln Laboratory (13 Nov. 1961),
DTIC #AD-271724.
5. J.L. Allen, D.M. Bernella, W.W. Carpenter, and W.P. Delaney,
“Phased Array Radar Studies, 1 July 1961 to 1 July 1963,” Tech-
nical Report 299, Lincoln Laboratory (20 Feb. 1963), DTIC
#AD-417572.
6. J.L. Allen, D.M. Bernella, F. Betts, and L. Cartledge, “Phased
Array Radar Studies, 1 July 1963 to 1 July 1964,” Technical
Report 381, Lincoln Laboratory (31 Mar. 1965), DTIC #AD-
629363.
VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2, 2000 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL 337
 • FENN, TEMME, DELANEY, AND COURTNEY
The Development of Phased-Array Radar Technology
7. J. Butler, “Multiple Beam Antenna,” Internal Memorandum
RF-3849, Sanders Associates, Inc., Nashua, N.H., 8 Jan. 1960.
8. J. Butler and R. Lowe, “Beam-Forming Matrix Simplifies De-
sign of Electronically Scanned Antennas,” Electron. Des. 9, 12
Apr. 1961, pp. 170–173.
9. J.L. Allen, “A Theoretical Limitation on the Formation of
Lossless Multiple Beams in Linear Arrays,” IRE Trans. Antennas
Propag. 9 (4), 1961, pp. 350–352.
10. W.P. Delaney, “An RF Multiple Beam Forming Technique,”
Group Report 41G-0012, Lincoln Laboratory (9 Aug. 1961),
DTIC #AD-262017.
11. A.A. Oliner and G.H. Knittel, eds., Phased Array Antennas
(Artech House, Dedham, Mass., 1972).
12. J.L. Allen, “Theory of Array Antennas (with Emphasis on
Radar Applications),” Technical Report 323, Lincoln Labora-
tory (25 July 1963), DTIC #AD-422945.
13. B.L. Diamond, “A Generalized Approach to the Analysis of
Infinite Planar Phased Array Antennas,” Proc. IEEE 56 (11),
1968, pp. 1837–1851.
14. B.L. Diamond and G.H. Knittel, “A New Procedure for the
Design of a Waveguide Element for a Phased-Array Antenna,”
in Phased Array Antennas, pp. 149–156.
15. G.N. Tsandoulas, “Unidimensionally Scanned Phased Ar-
rays,’’ IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. 28 (1), 1980, pp. 86–99.
16. M.H. Chen, G.N. Tsandoulas, and F.G. Willwerth, “Modal
Characteristics of Quadruple-Ridged Circular and Square
Waveguides,” IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Tech. 22 (8), 1974,
pp. 801–804.
17. M.H. Chen and G.N. Tsandoulas, “A Wide-Band Square-
Waveguide Array Polarizer,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. 21
(3), 1973, pp. 389–391.
18. G.N. Tsandoulas, “Wideband Limitations of Waveguide Ar-
rays,” Microw. J. 15 (9), 1972, pp. 49–56.
19. G.N. Tsandoulas and G.H. Knittel, “The Analysis and Design
of Dual-Polarization Square-Waveguide Phased Arrays,” IEEE
Trans. Antennas Propag. 21 (6), 1973, pp. 796–808.
20. A.J. Fenn, “Theoretical and Experimental Study of Monopole
Phased Array Antennas,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. 34
(10), 1985, pp. 1118–1126.
21. A.J. Fenn, “Arrays of Horizontally Polarized Loop-Fed Slotted
Cylinder Antennas,’’ IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. 33 (4),
1985, pp. 375–382.
22. R.C. Hansen, ed., Significant Phased Array Papers (Artech
House, Dedham, Mass., 1973).
23. R.J. Mailloux, Phased Array Handbook (Artech House,
Dedham, Mass., 1994).
24. E. Brookner, ed., Practical Phased-Array Antenna Systems
(Artech House, Boston, Mass., 1991).
25. R.C. Hansen, Microwave Scanning Antennas, Vol. II: Array
Theory and Practice (Peninsula Publishing, Los Altos, Calif.,
1985).
26. G.H. Knittel, “Relation of Radar Range Resolution and Sig-
nal-to-Noise Ratio to Phased-Array Bandwidth,” IEEE Trans.
Antennas Propag. 22 (3), 1974, pp. 418–426.
27. J.L. Allen, “Gain and Impedance Variation in Scanned Dipole
Arrays,” IRE Trans. Antennas Propag. 10 (5), 1962, pp. 566–
572.
28. J.L. Allen and W.P. Delaney, “On the Effect of Mutual Cou-
pling on Unequally Spaced Dipole Arrays,” IRE Trans. Anten-
nas Propag. 10 (6), 1962, pp. 784–785.
29. J.L. Allen, “On Array Element Impedance Variation with
Spacing,” IRE Trans. Antennas Propag. 12 (3), 1964, pp. 371–
372.
30. J.L. Allen, “On Surface-Wave Coupling between Elements of
338 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2, 2000
Large Arrays,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. 13 (4), 1965, pp.
638–639.
31. J.L. Allen and B.L. Diamond, “Mutual Coupling in Array An-
tennas,” Technical Report 424, Lincoln Laboratory (4 Oct.
1966), DTIC #AD-648153.
32. J.L. Allen, “A Simple Model for Mutual Coupling Effects on
Patterns of Unequally Spaced Arrays,” IEEE Trans. Antennas
Propag. 15 (4), 1967, pp. 530–533.
33. B.L. Diamond, “Small Arrays —Their Analysis and Their Use
for the Design of Array Elements,” in Phased Array Antennas,
pp. 127–131.
34. E. Brookner, ed., Radar Technology (Artech House, Dedham,
Mass., 1991).
35. G.N. Tsandoulas, “Space-Based Radar,” Science 237, 17 July
1987, pp. 257–262.
36. H.M. Aumann, “Continuously Adjustable Phase Center Dis-
placement in Phased Array Antennas,” 1992 IEEE Antennas
and Propagation Soc. Int. Symp. Digest 1, Chicago, 20–24 July
1992, pp. 454–457.
37. B.D. Carlson, L.M. Goodman, J. Austin, M.W. Ganz, and
L.O. Upton, “An Ultralow-Sidelobe Adaptive Array An-
tenna,” Linc. Lab. J. 3 (2), 1990, pp. 291–309.
38. W.J. Ince and D.H. Temme, “Phasers and Time Delay Ele-
ments” in Advances in Microwaves 4, L. Young, ed. (Academic
Press, New York, 1969), pp. 2–182.
39. M.I. Skolnik, “Nonuniform Arrays,” in Antenna Theory, pt. 1,
R.E. Collin and F.J. Zuker, eds. (McGraw-Hill, New York,
1969), pp. 207–234.
40. A. Uhlir, Jr., “The Potential of Semiconductor Diodes in High-
Frequency Communications,” Proc. IRE 46, June 1948, pp.
1099–1115.
41. P.J. Kahrilas, “HAPDAR—An Operational Phased Array Ra-
dar,” Proc. IEEE 56 (11), 1968, pp. 1967–1975.
42. J.F. White, “High Power, p-i-n Controlled, Microwave Trans-
mission Phase Shifters,” IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Tech. 13
(2), 1965, pp. 233–242.
43. J.E. Reed, “The AN/FPS-85 Radar System,” Proc. IEEE 57
(3), 1969, pp. 324–335.
44. E. Brookner, “Phased-Array Radars,” Sci. Am. 252 (2), 1985,
pp. 94–102.
45. B. Lax and K.J. Button, Microwave Ferrites and Ferrimagnetics
(McGraw-Hill, New York, 1962).
46. W.J. Ince and E. Stern, “Computer Analysis of Ferrite Digital
Phase Shifters,” IEEE Int. Convention Record 14, pt. 5, New
York, 21–25 Mar. 1966, pp. 32–38.
47. E. Stern and D.H. Temme, “Magnetostriction Effects in Re-
manence Phase Shifters,” IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Tech. 13
(6), 1965, pp. 873–874.
48. G.F. Dionne, “Effect of External Stress on Remanence Ratios
and Anisotropy Fields of Magnetic Materials,” IEEE Trans.
Magn. 5 (3), 1969, pp. 596–600.
49. G.F. Dionne, P.J. Paul, and R.G. West, “Compensation of
Magnetostriction Effects in Iron Garnets by Manganese Addi-
tions,” J. Appl. Phys. 41 (3), 1970, p. 1411.
50. P.D. Baba, G.M. Argentina, W.E. Courtney, G.F. Dionne, and
D.H. Temme, “Fabrication and Properties of Microwave
Lithium Ferrites,” IEEE Trans. Magn. 8 (1), 1972, pp. 83–94.
51. J. DiBartolo, W.J. Ince, and D.H. Temme, “A Solid-State ‘Flux
Drive’ Control Circuit for Latching-Ferrite-Phaser Applica-
tions,” Microw. J. 15 (9), 1972, pp. 59–64.
52. H. Shnitkin, “A Unique Joint STARS Phased-Array Antenna,”
Microw. J. 34 (1), 1991, pp. 131–141.
53. J.J. Schuss, J. Upton, B. Myers, T. Sikina, A. Rohwer, P.
Makridakas, R. Francois, L. Wardle, W. Kreutel, and R. Smith,
 • FENN, TEMME, DELANEY, AND COURTNEY
The Development of Phased-Array Radar Technology
“The IRIDIUM® Main Mission Antenna Concept,” 1996
IEEE Int. Symp. on Phased Array Systems and Technology, 15–18
Oct. 1996, Boston, pp. 411–415.
54. M. Sarcione, J. Mulcahey, D. Schmidt, K. Chang, M. Russel,
R. Enzmann, P. Rawlinson, W. Guzak, R. Howard, and M.
Mitchell, “The Design, Development and Testing of the
THAAD (Theater High Altitude Area Defense) Solid State
Phased Array (Formerly Ground Based Radar),” Proc. 1996
IEEE Int. Symp. on Phased Array Systems and Technology, Bos-
ton,15–18 Oct. 1996, pp. 260–265.
55. R. Sudbury, K. Fischer, E. Palmer, and G. Jones, “Operation of
Solid-State Transceivers in an L-Band Array,” IEEE MTT/S
Int. Microwave Symp. Dig., Atlanta, 12–14 June 1974, pp. 65–
67.
56. D.N. McQuiddy, Jr., R.L. Gassner, P. Hull, J.S. Mason, and
J.M. Bedinger, “Transmit/Receive Module Technology for X-
Band Active Array Radar,” Proc. IEEE 79 (3), 1991, pp. 308–
341.
57. A. Chu, W.E. Courtney, L.J. Mahoney, and B.J. Clifton, “Mil-
limeter-Wave Monolithic Circuits for Receiver and Transmit-
ter Applications,” RCA Review 46 (4), 1985, pp. 421–430;
Conf. Rec. Electro/85 and Mini/Micro Northeast, New York, 23–
25 Apr. 1985, pp. 1–5.
58. E.W. Mehal and R.W. Wacker, “GaAs Integrated Microwave
Circuits,” IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 15 (7), 1968, pp. 513–
516.
59. S. Mao, S. Jones, and G.D. Vendelin, “Millimeter-Wave Inte-
grated Circuits,” IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 15 (7), 1968, pp.
517–523.
60. W. Bächtold, W. Walter, and P. Wolf, “X and Ku Band
M.E.S.F.E.T.,” Electron. Lett. (UK) 8 (2), 1972, pp. 35–37.
61. W.E. Courtney, “Complex Permittivity of GaAs and CdTe at
Microwave Frequencies,” IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Tech. 25
(8), 1977, pp. 697–701.
62. A.G. Foyt, W.T. Lindley, C.M. Wolfe, and J.P. Donnelly, “Iso-
lation of Junction Devices in GaAs Using Proton Bombard-
ment,” Solid-State Electron. 12 (4), 1969, pp. 209–214.
63. R.S. Pengelly and J.A. Turner, “Monolithic Broadband GaAs
F.E.T. Amplifiers,” Electron. Lett. 12 (10), 1976, pp. 251–252.
64. Private communication.
65. E.D. Cohen, “Military Applications of MIMICs,” IEEE Mi-
crowave and Millimeter-Wave Monolithic Circuits Symp., Bos-
ton, 10–11 June 1999, pp. 31–34.
66. Private communication.
67. R.W. Sudbury, “Monolithic GaAs Circuits for Millimeter-
Wave Radar Applications,” Proc. Military Microwaves ’80,
London, 22–24 Oct. 1980, pp. 223–227.
68. Private communication.
69. A. Chu, W.E. Courtney, G.A. Lincoln, L.J. Mahoney, and
R.W. Sudbury, “GaAs Monolithic Balanced Mixer and Mono-
lithic MESFET Amplifier for 32 GHz Receiver Application,”
Workshop on Compound Semiconductors for Microwave Materi-
als and Devices, San Francisco, 11–12 Feb. 1980.
70. A. Chu, W.E. Courtney, L.J. Manfra, and A.R. Calawa, “Dual
Function Mixer Circuit for Millimeter Wave Transceiver Ap-
plications,” IEEE MTT/S Int. Microwave Symp. Dig., St. Louis,
Mo., 4–6 June 1985, pp. 120–123; Microw. J. 28 (8), 1985, pp.
141–145. (Note: includes graphs of conversion loss and noise
figure versus frequency, and ten references, including four of
Chu et al.)
71. M.E. Elta, A. Chu, L.J. Mahoney, R.T. Cerretani, and W.E.
Courtney, “Tantalum Oxide Capacitors for GaAs Monolithic
Integrated Circuits,” IEEE Electron Device Lett. 3 (5), 1982,
pp. 127–129.
72. A. Chu, W.E. Courtney, C.L. Chen, L.J. Mahoney, M.J.
Manfra, and H.A. Atwater, “Monolithic Analog Phase Shifters
and Frequency Multipliers for mm-Wave Phased Array Appli-
cations,” Microw. J. 29 (12), 1986, pp. 105–119.
73. A. Chu, W.E. Courtney, L.J. Mahoney, R.W. McLelland, and
H.A. Atwater, “GaAs Monolithic Frequency Doublers with
Series Connected Varactor Diodes,” IEEE Microwave and
Millimeter-Wave Monolithic Circuits Symp. Dig., San Francisco,
29–30 May 1984, pp. 74-78.
74. A. Chu, W.E. Courtney, L.J. Mahoney, R.W. McClelland, and
H.A. Atwater, “GaAs Monolithic Frequency Doublers with
Series Connected Diodes,” IEEE Microwave and Millimeter-
Wave Monolithic Circuits Symp. Digest, San Francisco, 29–30
May 1984, pp. 51–54.
75. H.M. Aumann, A.J. Fenn, and F.G. Willwerth, “Phased Array
Antenna Calibration and Pattern Prediction Using Mutual
Coupling Measurements,’’ IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. 37
(7), 1989, pp. 844–850.
76. H.M. Aumann and F.G. Willwerth, “Phased-Array Calibra-
tion by Adaptive Nulling,” Technical Report 915, Lincoln
Laboratory (20 May 1991), ESD-TR-91-047, DTIC #ADA-
238562.
77. H.M. Aumann and F.G. Willwerth, “Phased Array Calibra-
tions Using Measured Element Patterns,” 1995 IEEE Antennas
and Propagation Soc. Int. Symp. Digest 2, Newport Beach, Calif.,
18–23 June 1995, pp. 918–921.
78. H.M. Aumann and F.G. Willwerth, “Application of
Beamspace Techniques to Phased Array Calibration and Fault
Compensation,” 1991 Antenna Measurement Techniques Assoc.
Symp., Boulder, Colo., 7–11 Oct. 1991, pp. 10B/9–13.
79. A.J. Fenn, H.M. Aumann, and F.G. Willwerth, “Linear Array
Characteristics with One-Dimensional Reactive-Region
Near-Field Scanning: Simulations and Measurements,” IEEE
Trans. Antennas Propag. 39 (9), 1991, pp. 1305–1311.
80. A.J. Fenn, F.G. Willwerth, and H.M. Aumann, “Displaced
Phase Center Antenna Near Field Measurements for Space
Based Radar Applications,” Phased Arrays 1985 Symp. Proc.,
15–18 Oct. 1985, RADC-TR-85-171, pp. 303–318, Aug.
1985, DTIC #ADA-169316.
81. G.N. Tsandoulas, “Space-Based Radar Antenna Test Bed,”
Conf. Proc.: Military Microwaves ’88, 5–7 July 1988, London,
pp. 225–230.
82. A.J. Fenn, “Evaluation of Adaptive Phased Array Antenna Far-
Field Nulling Performance in the Near-Field Region,” IEEE
Trans. Antennas Propag. 38 (2), 1990, pp. 173–185.
83. A.J. Fenn, “Analysis of Phase-Focused Near-Field Testing for
Multiphase-Center Adaptive Radar Systems,’’ IEEE Trans. An-
tennas and Propag. 40 (8), 1992, pp. 878–887.
84. A.J. Fenn, H.M. Aumann, F.G. Willwerth, and J.R. Johnson,
“Focused Near-Field Adaptive Nulling: Experimental Investi-
gation,” 1990 IEEE Antennas and Propagation Soc. Int. Symp.
Digest 1, Dallas, 7–11 May 1990, pp. 186–189.
85. A.J. Fenn and G.A. King, “Adaptive Nulling in the Hyperther-
mia Treatment of Cancer,” Linc. Lab. J. 5 (2), 1992, pp. 223–
240.
VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2, 2000 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL 339

 . 
is a senior staff member in the
Advanced Electromagnetic
Systems group. He joined
Lincoln Laboratory in 1981
and was a member of the
Space Radar Technology group
from 1982 to 1991, where his
research was in phased-array
antenna design, adaptive-array
near-field testing, and antenna
and radar cross-section mea-
surements. From 1992 to
1999 he was an assistant group
leader in the RF Technology
group, where he managed
programs involving optically
controlled phased-array anten-
nas and the measurement of
atmospheric effects on ra-
domes and satellite communi-
cations. In 2000 he was elected
a Fellow of the IEEE for his
contributions to the theory
and practice of adaptive
phased-array antennas. In
1990 he was a corecipient of
the IEEE Antennas and
Propagation Society’s H.A.
Wheeler Applications Prize
Paper Award for a paper he
coauthored for the IEEE
Transactions on Antennas and
Propagation. He also received
the IEEE/URSI-sponsored
1994 International Sympo-
sium on Antennas (JINA 94)
Award for the best poster
presentation. He has a B.S.
degree from the University of
Illinois in Chicago, and M.S.
and Ph.D. degrees from Ohio
State University, Columbus,
all in electrical engineering.
340 LINCOLN LABORATORY JOURNAL
• FENN, TEMME, DELANEY, AND COURTNEY
The Development of Phased-Array Radar Technology
 . 
is a former senior staff member
in the Communications divi-
sion, and at present a consult-
ant to the Analog Device
Technology group. His
current research interest is in
ferrite-superconductor control
devices. Some of the major
Laboratory programs he con-
tributed to were early phase-
shifter developments, tactical
air-surveillance radar
(HOWLS), millimeter homing
radar, and space-borne surveil-
lance radar. He is currently
assisting the Concord Middle
School in increasing the phys-
ics content of the basic science
course. He received a B.S.
degree in electrical engineering
from the University of Ne-
braska, and an S.M. degree in
electrical engineering from
MIT. Before joining Lincoln
Laboratory in 1957 he was in
the U.S. Air Force. He is a life
member of the IEEE and a
member of Sigma Xi.
VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2, 2000
 .   . 
came to Lincoln Laboratory in was born in Lurgan County,
1957 after receiving a B.E.E. Armagh, Northern Ireland. He
degree from Rensselaer Poly- received a B.Sc. degree in
technic Institute. In 1959 he physics and a Ph.D. degree in
received an S.M.E.E. degree electrical engineering from the
from MIT, where he became Queen’s University of Belfast,
involved in radar with a thesis Northern Ireland, in 1959 and
on UHF power amplifiers for 1963, respectively. From 1963
phased arrays. His early re- to 1966 he was a Department
search at the Laboratory in- of Scientific and Industrial
volved phased-array radars. At Research and Ministry of
Kwajalein Atoll he led the Aviation postdoctoral research
ALCOR wideband radar fellow in the Department of
project. Returning to the Electrical Engineering, Univer-
Laboratory in 1970, he held sity of Leeds, England. From
management positions of 1966 to 1968 he was a
increasing responsibility in postdoctoral fellow, Division
missile defense, air defense, air of Sponsored Research, in the
traffic control, and battlefield Center for Materials Science
surveillance, all involving radar and Engineering at MIT. He
systems. From 1973 to 1976 was a staff member from 1968
he served in the Office of the to 1995 at Lincoln Laboratory.
Secretary of Defense, with
responsibilities for R&D in
strategic defense systems. In
1987 he was appointed assis-
tant director of the Laboratory,
and in 1995 he became a
Director’s Office Fellow. He
has served on many govern-
ment committees, including
the Air Force Scientific Advi-
sory Board and the Defense
Science Board. He has been
awarded the Secretary of
Defense Meritorious Civilian
Service Medal and the Air
Force Exceptional Civilian
Service Medal. In 1991 he was
elected a Fellow of the IEEE.
His dominant recreational
pursuit is fly fishing, including
far-flung places such as Christ-
mas Island, Patagonia, or the
Kola Peninsula of Russia,
where he catches fish so large
he doesn’t have to lie about
them!